Specifically re: your point about inalienable rights, you might be interested to know that Jefferson originally wrote "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Doesn't sound quite as religious as "...all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights..," does it? The Continental Congress changed the wording to emphasize "Creator." In my view, the difference being that in the original wording, it seems to point to the inherent rights of man as a natural being in and of himself, whereas the final wording indicates the rights as a "gift" from a benevolent god. What that tells me is that our government has been forced to pander to the religious since the very beginning.

Both the adopted statement and Jefferson's original statement (which is closer to the statement contained in George Mason's Declaration of Rights which Jefferson likely used as a template: Virginia Declaration of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) are statements encapsulating the believe in "Natural Law" a concept which considered certain rights to be ordained and granted by the Creator. To assert that Jefferson meant anything other than that certain "natural" rights were divinely granted is to warp the historical context in which his statements (original and adopted) were written.

Sir Edward Coke was the preeminent jurist of his time. As his recent editor has written, once Coke said that something was the law, almost everyone agreed. Coke's preeminence extended across the ocean: "For the American revolutionary leaders, 'law' meant Sir Edward Coke’s custom and right reason." Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison that before the Revolution, the first volume of Coke's Institutes of the Laws of England "was the universal elementary book of law students, and a sounder Whig never wrote, nor of profounder learning in the orthodox doctrines of the British constitution, or in what were called English liberties."

Coke defined law as "perfect reason, which commands those things that are proper and necessary and which prohibits contrary things.” For Coke, human nature determined the purpose of law; and law was superior to any one man's reason or will. Coke's discussion of natural law appears in his report of Calvin's Case (1608): "The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction." In this case the judges found that “the ligeance or faith of the subject is due unto the King by the law of nature: secondly, that the law of nature is part of the law of England: thirdly, that the law of nature was before any judicial or municipal law: fourthly, that the law of nature is immutable.” To support these findings, the assembled judges (as reported by Coke, who was one of them) cited as authorities Aristotle, Cicero, and the Apostle Paul; as well as Bracton, Fortescue, and St. Germain.

And, just so we're clear as to Jefferson's beliefs in drafting the Declaration:

"Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion . . . ."

-- "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," Section I

"For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."

As 24 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence held seminary degrees, I would suggest that, rather than "pandering to religion", the Declaration's language reflects the deeply held beliefs of the signers that the natural rights of man were, in fact, a gift of God. Founding Fathers Quotes - Christian Quotes of the Founding Fathers

You may disagree with their beliefs and conclusions but to assert that they did not hold them is simply wrong.

Both the adopted statement and Jefferson's original statement (which is closer to the statement contained in George Mason's Declaration of Rights which Jefferson likely used as a template: Virginia Declaration of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) are statements encapsulating the believe in "Natural Law" a concept which considered certain rights to be ordained and granted by the Creator. To assert that Jefferson meant anything other than that certain "natural" rights were divinely granted is to warp the historical context in which his statements (original and adopted) were written.

And, just so we're clear as to Jefferson's beliefs in drafting the Declaration:

"Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion . . . ."

-- "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," Section I

"For in a warm climate, no man will labour for himself who can make another labour for him. This is so true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever . . . ."

As 24 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence held seminary degrees, I would suggest that, rather than "pandering to religion", the Declaration's language reflects the deeply held beliefs of the signers that the natural rights of man were, in fact, a gift of God. Founding Fathers Quotes - Christian Quotes of the Founding Fathers

You may disagree with their beliefs and conclusions but to assert that they did not hold them is simply wrong.

[QUOTE=BleedBurgundy;726506]I dismiss insanity pretty readily. When someone gets up and starts claiming that we as a nation need to turn back to a mythological being in hopes of fixing real world problems... sorry, I don't need to listen to that nonsense. I wonder... if this were someone saying that the US needs to turn to Allah for guidance in order to restore honor (whatever the hell that even means), how would that work out? Buddha? Pastafarianism? Sorry, crazy is crazy. I don't pay attention to the guy on the train rambling about the end of the world and I likewise can't be bothered with an uneducated blowhard spouting equivalent drivel. The only reason it's even worthy of discussion is that there are at least 300,000 like minded lunatics.[/QUOTE]

so you think christians are insane lunatics? people like you are the reason this country is so screwed up.

__________________ Hail to Allen/Shanahan .... bring in some baby hogs and load up on diesel fuel !!! (budw38)

Then we have to contend with the issue of the Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by President John Adams, (many of whom consider to be among the most Puritanical of the Founders) which says...

Quote:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me ... much more, in fact, than the relatively vague "Creator" mention.

Seems to me that Jefferson and the rest of the drafters of the Declaration of Independence could very easily have substituted "Almighty God" for "our Creator" -- to eliminate any doubt.

The fact that they didn't has to account for the fact that they weren't as certain about the whole thing as modern day evangelicals would have us believe.

They could have written any number of equivalent titles. To assert the Founding Fathers weren't "certain" of their belief that the "Creator", "Almighty God", the "Divine Being", the "Holiest of Holies", etc. existed and granted certain inalienable rights to humans is to completely disregard their writings and statements made at the time. It is an assertion which is clearly contradicted by historical fact.

The "modern day evangelicals" often misconstrue what the Founders meant by certain stateemnts relating to religion and God in order to make it in accord with their own belief system. However, the misuse of the Founder's words by some does not discount the firmness and conviction of the Founders underlying beliefs which can only be determined fully by looking at those words in the context of their time and in the context of the otherwise stated beliefs of those who made them.

If the framers founded this nation upon "Judeo-Christian values" as many contend, why does the very first amendment to the Constitution guarantee freedom of religion, when the first of the most basic laws of the Hebrew God command that "[he] is the lord thy god, and [we] shall have no other gods before him" ??

So it would appear that the first amendment is be in direct conflict with the first commandment. Not what you'd expect from the men who created this nation upon Judeo-Christian values.

If the framers founded this nation upon "Judeo-Christian values" as many contend, why does the very first amendment to the Constitution guarantee freedom of religion, when the first of the most basic laws of the Hebrew God command that "[he] is the lord thy god, and [we] shall have no other gods before him" ??

So it would appear that the first amendment is be in direct conflict with the first commandment. Not what you'd expect from the men who created this nation upon Judeo-Christian values.

Remember the 1st Amendment was written in many ways with respect to the liberties that were being repressed by the King of England. That included the freedom to establish Protestant churches instead of Anglican (or Church of England) ones. As for the Treaty of Tripoli, what were we supposed to say, that we were in search of a holy were with the "musselmans"??? Political expediency was and is alive and well.

Seems to me that Jefferson and the rest of the drafters of the Declaration of Independence could very easily have substituted "Almighty God" for "our Creator" -- to eliminate any doubt.

The fact that they didn't has to account for the fact that they weren't as certain about the whole thing as modern day evangelicals would have us believe.

I believe they said exactly what they meant to say and didn't play games. They are meaning God in the generic sense. Not necessarily their own specific God. They were in the midst of unshackling themselves from religious tyranny so they understood the err of citing one specific theological God. I don't think what they said was at all less "certain" more than it was meant to be more accessible.

Then we have to contend with the issue of the Treaty of Tripoli, signed into law by President John Adams, (many of whom consider to be among the most Puritanical of the Founders) which says...

Quote:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me ... much more, in fact, than the relatively vague "Creator" mention.

The US wasn’t founded on "the Christian Religion". Rather it was founded on the freedom of religion. The founders were not atheists. They were, however, very concerned with any attempt by the State to coerce anyone into any religion by government action.

On one hand, Madison writes of religion in govt. as evil:

Quote:

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.

At the same time, Madison was a firm believer in Christianity and felt only by freedom of choice could both good government and religious pursuits.

Quote:

It is a pleasing and persuasive example of pious zeal, united with pure benevolence and of a cordial attachment to a particular creed, untinctured with sectarian illiberality. It illustrates the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations. The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.

Despite the need for separation, Madison also felt that the principles of “Christian forbearance, love and charity” were necessary for civil society.

Quote:

Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.

Religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrate, unless under color of religion any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or safety of society, and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity toward each other.

Again, to try and disassociate the Founders’ belief in God and their creation and adoption of the founding documents is simply wrong. It is also wrong, however, to assert that the Founders intended to found an evangelical (or, for that matter, any particular type of) “Christian Nation”. Rather, they intended to found a nation based on the liberties they saw encapsulated in “natural law” and, accordingly, believed that the “inalienable rights” they stated within the Declaration and the Constitution were rights granted man by a Divine Being. Given that they were granted divinely, there was no way these rights could be legitimately denied by other men. Nothing more, nothing less.